Susan Rice Still Lying About Benghazi

[Freewill]

New Declassified Docs Expose Obama’s Benghazi Lies
January 14, 2014 by Arnold Ahlert

Newly declassified documents reveal that high-ranking members of the Obama administration were aware that the September 11, 2012 assault on the American consulate in Benghazi was a “terrorist attack” only minutes after the battle began. In classified testimony given on June 26, 2013 to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Gen. Carter Hamm, former head of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) revealed he was the one who broke the news to former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Hamm testified that he learned about the attack only 15 minutes after it began at 9:42 p.m. Libya time. Thus, the administration’s carefully crafted narrative that the attack was based on a video has once again been revealed for the lie it always was.

“My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey’s office, to say, ‘Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,’” the General told lawmakers. ”I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta.” Hamm characterized the ability to meet with both men so soon after the attack occurred as a fortunate ”happenstance” because “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.”

That meeting had been pre-scheduled with the president for 5 p.m. EST. A Defense Department (DOD) timeline notes that the meeting occurred one hour and 18 minutes after the attack began, and even as the battle at the consulate was ongoing. The DOD also revealed that an unarmed drone arrived over the battlefield during that time. As both men revealed in subsequent testimony, the meeting with the president lasted approximately 30 minutes — after which they never heard from anyone in the White House again.

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed the General more forcefully on the nature of his conversation with Panetta and Dempsey. He expressed his concern “that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration” rather than a terrorist attack. Hamm noted their was some “preliminary discussion” of the point, but emphasized that they were aware of what was really going on. “But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack,” he testified. Hamm also reiterated that “with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.”

“The American people deserve the truth. They deserve to know what’s going on, and I honestly think that that’s why you have seen — beyond the tragedy that there was a loss of four Americans’ lives – is that the American people feel misled.”

Kim R. Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state under President George W. Bush, echoed that assertion. ”Leon Panetta should have spoken up,” he insisted. ”The people at the Pentagon and frankly, the people at the CIA stood back while all of this was unfolding and allowed this narrative to go on longer than they should have.”​

Read more at....New Declassified Docs Expose Obama?s Benghazi Lies | FrontPage Magazine

Whether it was planed or spontaneous - HOW WAS THIS NOT AN ACT OF TERROR???

The whole point is that this was an assault on US property and lives, it was an act of war. Terror/terrorism I just an excuse not to effectively do anything.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama supporters entering this thread to say "Bush lied too...Republicans lie.. in 5,4,3,2,1...

Bush lied! Or he was too stupid, or too lazy, or too incompetent. If Obama had done everything Bush had done beginning in January 2001 you would be calling for his head. That makes you - and I'm being nice - a hypocrite.

If Bush did half the crap Obama has done I would be on his ass just as hard. Problem is Bush would never do any of this BS.



It's not that he's a Democrat.

It's not that he's Black.

It's because he sucks as a leader, and lies about how much he sucks.

His entire deal is covering up how much he sucks.

 

[Theowl32]

Obama supporters entering this thread to say "Bush lied too...Republicans lie.. in 5,4,3,2,1...

Bush lied! Or he was too stupid, or too lazy, or too incompetent. If Obama had done everything Bush had done beginning in January 2001 you would be calling for his head. That makes you - and I'm being nice - a hypocrite.

If Bush did half the crap Obama has done I would be on his ass just as hard. Problem is Bush would never do any of this BS.



It's not that he's a Democrat.

It's not that he's Black.

It's because he sucks as a leader, and lies about how much he sucks.

His entire deal is covering up how much he sucks.

Can you believe they actually claim Bush lied about WMDs still, even though we have shown how the democraps propagated WMDs in Iraq long before Bush took office?

They really cannot handle it. They totally ignore it. I mean wrycatcher is as dense as a black hole.

BOOOOOSH lied!!!!!!


They will vote for Hillary anyway, and will praise her, even though she clearly claimed WMDs before Bush took office, and voted for the war in Iraq.

Hillary has been nothing short of an absolute disgrace in every office she has occupied. Liberals have been proven to the actual bold faced liars. I mean they are caught red handed, and these dinks like wrycatcher still prop them up.

Watch, they will still claim Bush lied about WMDs. Hell, we all know they all still think Bush and Cheney planned 911......for oil. You know and I know he saw Fahrenheit 911 more than once.


The only thing more pathetic than these commies in power are the morons on the left that proudly vote for them and still brag about it to this day.

 

[Theowl32]

Liberals are so stupid.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberals are so stupid.

Owls are bird brains. Hoo, yeah, you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obama supporters entering this thread to say "Bush lied too...Republicans lie.. in 5,4,3,2,1...

Bush lied! Or he was too stupid, or too lazy, or too incompetent. If Obama had done everything Bush had done beginning in January 2001 you would be calling for his head. That makes you - and I'm being nice - a hypocrite.

If Bush did half the crap Obama has done I would be on his ass just as hard. Problem is Bush would never do any of this BS.



It's not that he's a Democrat.

It's not that he's Black.

It's because he sucks as a leader, and lies about how much he sucks.

His entire deal is covering up how much he sucks.

Can you believe they actually claim Bush lied about WMDs still, even though we have shown how the democraps propagated WMDs in Iraq long before Bush took office?

They really cannot handle it. They totally ignore it. I mean wrycatcher is as dense as a black hole.

BOOOOOSH lied!!!!!!


They will vote for Hillary anyway, and will praise her, even though she clearly claimed WMDs before Bush took office, and voted for the war in Iraq.

Hillary has been nothing short of an absolute disgrace in every office she has occupied. Liberals have been proven to the actual bold faced liars. I mean they are caught red handed, and these dinks like wrycatcher still prop them up.

Watch, they will still claim Bush lied about WMDs. Hell, we all know they all still think Bush and Cheney planned 911......for oil. You know and I know he saw Fahrenheit 911 more than once.


The only thing more pathetic than these commies in power are the morons on the left that proudly vote for them and still brag about it to this day.

Ummm...explain this, note the date and the signers:

PNAC-----Statement of Principles >>Project for a New American Century

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; • We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

 

[Wry Catcher]

Look like the architects of the Invasion of Iraq and its occupation had plans well before 2003 and their lies about Mushroom Clouds;

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

 

[Theowl32]

I don't like the idea of this becoming a racial thing, but facts are facts. The first Black President has made it one. Aside from Benghazi he continues to drive a wedge between Whites and Blacks by interfering in racial incidents in an anti-white way. "The police acted stupidly", "If I had a son", "Don't punish black kids the same as white kids", and it goes on and on.

The example that's being made in his Administration is not favorable for the first Black President and his black National Security Adviser. And no FREEWILL, it's not the same as the WMD thing and Bush. The whole World knew Saddam Hussein had WMD's, so if anyone was lying it was the whole effing World.

Only a slobbering idiot could think Obama, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the Regime thought the Benghazi murders were caused by a video. If, and this is a fantasy if, the Regime really thought it was caused by the video, the whole Regime is totally incompetent! In either case it leaves a negative shadow on the first black President and his number one supporter.
Damn sure can't be good for black/white relations.

The comparison to WMD is to point out the hypocrisy of the liberal left.

The question still remains is why did she put out information that wasn't 100 percent true? IF they knew at the time it was not true then why would they say it knowing it would be exposed?

Plus, whenever they do point out the so called "lies" about wmds, they cannot handle the fact that it was democrats that propagated the existence of WMDs before Bush took office.

Like the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs signed by Bill Clinton.

[ame=[MEDIA=youtube]457jp8VGhEE[/MEDIA] Clinton 1998 Iraq Liberation Act - YouTube[/ame]

Of course this was fully supported by Hillary.

[ame=[MEDIA=youtube]iSwSDvgw5Uc[/MEDIA], WMD's & The Iraq War - YouTube[/ame]

A person they will gleefully vote for in 2016.

Behold the Clintons folks. Just to reiterate.

[ame=[MEDIA=youtube]VrI21UytBhw[/MEDIA] and Bill Clinton were both for the invasion of Iraq +WMDs - YouTube[/ame]


All of this only proves one thing. Liberals stand for absolutely nothing. They just chant BOOOOOOSH!!!!! It was all BOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!


They still believe the Benghazi thing was over a fucking video. Yet, Obama called it a terror attack when that fat blob in the debates said Obama said it was an ORGANIZED terror attack. That was after of course the Obama administration systematically told the country (world) that it was a spontaneous attack. Then, the morons on the left laughed when Crowley pointed out (like the typical left wing fat hack) that Obama indeed said it was a planned terror attack. Only to later on say she was wrong, and Obama never actually said it was a planned attack.

So, where are we with this? Obama still sells that it was a spontaneous attack cause of a video AND he also claims he knew it was an organized terror attack. Both of which the liberals cheer and support. Both of which are juxtaposed opposite claims.


They will always go back to the so called lies of BOOOOSH for WMDs that the democrats propagated before BOOOOOOSH took office.

The worst part is they think they make sense, and they always think they are the smartest ones in the room.

It is pathetic isn't it?

 

[Claudette]

"comments were well validated, but then she also said that her comments weren't 100% correct"

Here is the deal, she speaks for Obama. Obama is the most powerful man in the world. He has several intelligence agencies feeding him information. So, he gets told something which is no 100 percent true. He may not know it is not 100 percent true. So he goes out and says it later to find out it was wrong. Kinda like being told there were WMD yet finding out there was no large quantity of WMD. Hmmm. see a difference?

Now, why did the intelligence community feed Obama a pile of crap? Or did they? Obviously not being 100 percent true means it is false. So why? To cover gun running? Illegal gun running? Or did Obama change the talking points to help his reelection? I don't believe the latter because I don't think it would matter at all. Obama could have come out and said that he lead the attack and he still would have been reelected. So why the obvious lie? I say obvious because at the time everyone already knew this wasn't simply a protest. Also consider that most of the protests over the world came after 9/11 not on 9/11. I believe there was one protest on that day. The protests came AFTER the POTUS and his spokesperson made the video famous.

Remember, it is not a lie it is just not 100 percent true. And I failed to see her apology and the fixing of blame. Who gave her the "not 100 percent true" information that they spoke with such assured confidence as being true?

The CIA knew it was a terrorist attack when it started and they advised the WH immediately.

They knew it had nothing to do with a video and they knew it from the moment the attack started.

They had months of warnings about an attack and with the anniversary of 911 one would think that State would have taken those warnings as seriously as the Brits and the Red Cross did.

Nope. They did nothing and four good men died because of that nothing.